Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] RFC3012bis - Comments from ADs (Protocol related) (ISSUE NO. 7)

From: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:34:04 -0500

Please see my comments inline.

Regards;
Ahmad Muhanna

Non-editorial comments associated with RFC3012bis:

Please post your comments with the appropriate issue number in the subject
line (instead of simply replying to this email).

-Chairs.

7. The Foreign Agent MUST NOT accept any Challenge in the Registration
   Request unless it was offered in last Registration Reply issued
   to the Mobile Node, or else advertised as one of the last
   CHALLENGE_WINDOW (see section 9) Challenge values inserted into the
   immediately preceding Agent advertisements.  If the Challenge is

   This seems suboptimal. If the reply is lost between the FA and MN
   then the MN can't send a new request until it has received a new
   agent advertisement.  Why not have the "keep N+1 challege values"
   apply to the values sent in both advertisements and replies? 

Yes, we are trying to optimize the solution. No one ever said it is perfect.
It is possible that the RRP message is getting lost and not received by the
Mobile Node. 
The assumption that the RRP is going to be lost and why to keep track with 
the Challenge is quite a broader question and issue than MIP itself. 
The suggestion here is that UDP is not reliable at all! If so why to bother
keeping track of anything sent in RRP message or anything using UDP.

I am in favor of continue tracking N+1 unless a convincing argument proves
otherwise.

Regards,
Ahmad